Judge upholds Reno's digital billboard ordinance

Washoe District Judge Patrick Flanagan has upheld the city of Reno's digital billboard ordinance, which allows billboard companies to tear down four traditional signs in exchange for building a new digital sign.

In his decision Thursday, Flanagan struck down two competing lawsuits:

One lawsuit was filed by Saunders Outdoor Advertising, a small billboard company that claimed the city's digital billboard ordinance violated its First Amendment rights and that it favored larger companies with more of an inventory of signs.

The second lawsuit was filed by Scenic Nevada, which argued the ordinance violated the ban on new billboards within the city of Reno approved by voters in 2000.

Flanagan found the city's ordinance struck a proper balance between protecting economic freedom and honoring the will of the voters to prevent scenic blight when it created the ordinance allowing companies to trade four existing "static" billboards for one new digital billboard.

"The city of Reno reached out to both constituencies in open workshop meetings and public hearings to promulgate municipal ordinances that balance the commercial needs of its business community and the scenic preservation aspirations of its citizens, enhancing both the economy and the community," Flanagan wrote.

Saunders had argued that the 2012 ordinance violated its First Amendment rights to upgrade an existing sign to a digital sign. It also argued that the four-to-one exchange requirement benefited companies with a large inventory of existing signs, giving them a competitive advantage and violating the Equal Protection Clause.

Flanagan, however, decided the ordinance reasonably restricts digital billboards to preserve the region's aesthetic values and protect public safety and doesn't violate either the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause.

The crux of Scenic Nevada's argument came down to whether voters in 2000 meant to prohibit all new billboards, or simply additional billboards.

Since Scenic Nevada's voter initiative passed in 2000, the city has allowed sign companies to remove old signs in order to build new ones in different locations, capping the overall number of billboards. Scenic Nevada didn't challenge that ordinance until the issue of digital billboards entered the fray.

Flanagan determined voters intended to prohibit "additional billboards," upholding the city's approach of capping the total number of signs in the city.

In an email to its members, Scenic Nevada said it will appeal Flanagan's ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court.

The four to one ratio is only required in a few of the "cluttered" areas of Reno, such as Midtown. The ordinance also allows billboard companies to surrender eight banked billboard permits instead of tearing any billboards down to put up one digital in these areas. Outside of these cluttered areas, billboard companies are required to remove only two billboards to erect one digital. There may be more billboards located outside the clutter areas than within. So there are ways built into the ordnaince to get around removing four billboards and still be able to build a brand new digital billboard - in a city where the voters banned new billboard construction and new billboard permits over 14 years ago.

This is a case of "unlike"..Lori sorry the judge upheld digital billboard ordinance..It's absurd really that you have to fight something that the voters banned all those years ago..sigh..Good luck with the challenge at the supreme court..Reno should be so thankfull that you and Mark are there on the frontlines..Wish I could be there to help but there in spirit..Sending positive and aloha..it's not over yet..at least for now the appeal gives a pause..still holding out for you all, that there will be success..light at the end of the tunnel.

Actually, the voters banned new billboards and permits back in 2000, hoping over time that billboards would come down for one reason or another, never to be replaced. The city council then promptly interpreted the law as a cap on new billboards, not a ban. If you already own a billboard, you can take it down from one location and put it up in a new permited location. So, the city council invented that policy, saying billboard owners can "relocate" billboards to permitted locations, not the voters, perpetuating billboards within the Reno city limits. Since the vote in 2000, the city council has issued new permits and allowed new construction of billboards on a routine basis in violation of the the ban. The council believes it is upholding the voters wishes because they say they are not allowing any "additional" billboards then the number in place at the time of the vote, 278 billboards. But, that didn't hold up either because of court settlements with billboard companies and annexations. We have more billboard permits within Reno now then in 2000, when the ban was passed. Then the city council expanded that policy by saying that digital billboards are okay under certain conditions. The judge merely upheld the city council's permissive billboard sign code. Scenic Nevada has appealed the judge's decision.

So if I own land that is zoned properly for a digital billboard, I cannot build my own billboard but rather have to rent my land to a large billboard company, thus making maybe 25% of the revenue instead of 100% of the revenue? Has this judge not just created a monopoly? Has a person's land rights just been violated in that they cannot generate the most revenue possible off their own land? Wow, good for the large companies...wonder if the Judge will get free billboards next election.